Martinelli v. Johnson & Johnson

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedSeptember 28, 2021
Docket2:15-cv-01733
StatusUnknown

This text of Martinelli v. Johnson & Johnson (Martinelli v. Johnson & Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Martinelli v. Johnson & Johnson, (E.D. Cal. 2021).

Opinion

1 BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. L. Timothy Fisher (State Bar No. 191626) 2 Neal J. Deckant (State Bar No. 322946) Brittany S. Scott (State Bar No. 327132) 3 1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 4 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 5 E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com ndeckant@bursor.com 6 bscott@bursor.com

7 BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. Joseph I. Marchese (admitted pro hac vice) 8 Frederick J. Klorczyk III (State Bar No. 320783) 888 Seventh Avenue, Third Floor 9 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 10 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-Mail: jmarchese@bursor.com 11 fklorczyk@bursor.com

12 BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. Scott A. Bursor (State Bar No. 276006) 13 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420 Miami, FL 331331 14 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 15 E-Mail: scott@bursor.com

16 Class Counsel

17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 18 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 19 JOANN MARTINELLI, individually and on Case No. 2:15-cv-01733-MCE-DB 20 behalf of all others similarly situated, ORDER PRELIMINARILY 21 Plaintiff, APPROVING CLASS ACTION 22 SETTLEMENT v. 23 Hon. Morrison C. England, Jr.

24 JOHNSON & JOHNSON and McNEIL NUTRITIONALS, LLC, 25 Defendants. 26

27 28 1 WHEREAS, Class Representative JoAnn Martinelli and Defendants Johnson & Johnson 2 and McNeil Nutritionals, LLC have reached a proposed settlement and compromise of the claims 3 in the above-captioned matter, which is embodied in the Stipulation of Settlement that has been 4 provided to the Court; 5 WHEREAS, the parties have applied to the Court for preliminary approval of the proposed 6 Settlement; and 7 WHEREAS, the capitalized terms herein shall have the same meaning as in the Stipulation 8 of Settlement; 9 NOW, THEREFORE, the Court, having read and considered the Stipulation of Settlement 10 and accompanying documents, as well as the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and 11 supporting papers, and the parties to the Stipulation of Settlement having consented to the entry of 12 this order, and good cause appearing, 13 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 14 1. Subject to further consideration by the Court at the time of the Final Approval 15 Hearing, the Court preliminarily approves the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate to the 16 Settlement Class, as falling within the range of possible final approval, and as meriting submission 17 to the Settlement Class for its consideration. 18 2. The settlement set forth in the parties’ Stipulation of Settlement is within the range 19 of reasonableness and possible final approval in that it appears fair, reasonable, and adequate. The 20 agreement contained in that Stipulation of Settlement was reached as a result of extensive arm’s- 21 length negotiations between the Parties and their counsel with the assistance of an experienced 22 mediator. This included three separate mediation sessions before the Stipulation of Settlement was 23 reached. Additionally, before entering into the Stipulation of Settlement, this Action had been 24 vigorously litigated for more than five years. Thus, the Parties and their counsel had sufficient 25 information to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the case and to conduct informed 26 settlement discussions. 27 28 1 3. For purposes of the Settlement only, the Court certifies the Settlement Class, which 2 consists of all individuals who purchased Benecol Regular Spreads and Benecol Light Spreads in 3 the United States from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2011 for personal use. 4 4. The requirements for certification of the Settlement Class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 23(a), and (b)(3) have been satisfied for settlement purposes. The Court finds, for settlement 6 purposes only, that: (a) the Settlement Class is defined by objective criteria and ascertainable; (b) 7 the numerosity requirement is satisfied; (c) there are questions of law and fact that are common to 8 the Settlement Class, and those questions of law and fact common to the Settlement Class 9 predominate over any questions affecting any individual Settlement Class Member; (d) the claims 10 of the Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class she seeks to represent for purposes 11 of settlement; (e) a class action is superior to other available means of adjudicating this dispute; (f) 12 and Plaintiff and Class Counsel are adequate representatives of the Class. The Court has also 13 conducted the choice of law analysis required by In re Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litigation, 14 881 F.3d 679 (9th Cir. 2018) and determined that it can certify a nationwide class under California 15 law and that California has a substantial interest in regulating the conduct of companies who do 16 business in California. 17 5. The Court provisionally appoints JoAnn Martinelli as the Class Representative of 18 the Settlement Class. 19 6. The Court appoints Scott A. Bursor and Bursor & Fisher, P.A., as Class Counsel for 20 purposes of this Settlement. 21 7. A Final Approval Hearing shall be held before this Court at 2:00 p.m. on March 24, 22 2021 in Courtroom 7, on the 14th floor, of the Robert T. Matsui United States Courthouse, 501 I 23 Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, to address: (a) whether the proposed Settlement should be finally 24 approved as fair, reasonable and adequate; (b) whether the Final Approval Order and Judgment 25 should be entered; (c) whether the application for approval of the payment of attorneys’ fees to 26 Class Counsel from the Settlement Fund should be approved; (d) whether Class Counsel’s 27 application for reimbursement of costs and expenses and the payment of incentive awards to the 28 1 Class Representative from the Settlement Fund should be approved; and (e) any other matters that 2 the Court deems appropriate. 3 8. Since the settlement set forth in the parties’ Stipulation of Settlement is within the 4 range of reasonableness for possible Final Approval, Class Notice should be provided to the 5 Settlement Class pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement, as follows: 6 a. The Court appoints JND, a well-qualified and experienced claims and notice 7 administrator, as the Settlement Administrator. Defendants are directed to provide JND with 8 contact information in its possession that identifies Class Members or likely Class Members. 9 Defendants shall provide this information, and JND shall retain this information, for the sole 10 purpose of effecting Class Notice as provided in the Stipulation of Settlement and this Order. 11 b. The Court hereby approves the Long-Form Notice attached as Exhibit B to 12 the Settlement Agreement. On or before thirty (30) days after the entry of an order granting 13 preliminary approval, Class Counsel shall cause a copy of the Long Form Notice to be posted on a 14 dedicated website together with links to important case documents, such as the Preliminary 15 Approval Order, this Stipulation of Settlement, the First Amended Class Action Complaint, and 16 Defendants’ Answer to First Amended Class Action Complaint. 17 c. Class Counsel shall register www.benecolsettlement.com for notice 18 purposes, along with several additional domains that will mirror and/or link to that website. Class 19 members will be directed to the website by hyperlinks embedded in the email version of the Short 20 Form Notice.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Caitlin Ahearn v. Hyundai Motor America
881 F.3d 679 (Ninth Circuit, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Martinelli v. Johnson & Johnson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinelli-v-johnson-johnson-caed-2021.